The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1887-12-08
PROHIBITION SUSTAINED,
The United States Supreme Court Do
cides the Kansas Prohibition Cases
In Favor Of the State
An Exhaustive Disquisitioa Upon tn,
Right Of q State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.

WASHINGTON. Dec ga very important
decision, and one likely to be far-reaching /,
it, consequences, was rendered In the Unitet
states supreme court to-day In the Kansa
prohibition cases Of Augler against tho Stat
OF Kansas and the State Of Kansas against lie
bold and others The Judgment Of tho cour
was announced Ia = long opinion by Justice
Harlan. who said:
The general question in each case IL whethe,
the prohibition statutes Of Kansas are in con1aicl
WITH that clause Of the fourteenth amendment
yo 1tcn p1yides thst no state shal! make Or en-
or 1mmuntttes OF citizens Of the United States
nor shall any state deprive any nerbon Of life
e1 S st SS sSs
utaeture within her limits Of intoxicating
LIQUORS, to be there SOLD or bartered for general
use as beverage. does not necessarily infringe
constitution OF tue United States. ia made cleai
by tho decisions Of tho court rendered before
ana since the adoption Of the fourteenth amend;
men, me- .;s, 1t Is however, co3tended that although
toxicattng liquors for sale Or barter within hor
limits for general use as . beverage, no conven-
tion Or legislature has the right undo,
any citizen from manutacturins for Ris
own use or for export or storage, any
article OF food or drink not endangerins OF
seAASCoAHA VA0 JlkulS VI Otu0lSs Inc &JH0m0nE
proposition is: That in tho implied coiApscti
between the state and the citizen, certain ri0hts
pre- PR by the latter which are guaranteed
lection OF life, liberty and property against de-
prlvat1on without due process Of law and with
which the state cannot interfere: that an onq
own use either food or drizk: That, while &C.
cording to the doctrines Of the commune. the
state may control the tastes, appetites, habits,
KSNHtfN hfN RI n ~Ss 49,
OF government, based upon the individuality
and intel!iRence Of tho people. docs not claim to
control him except as to his conduct to others,
Leaving him the sole judge as to all that only
proposition and the argument made in support
OF 1t equally concede that the right to manu-
tecture drink TOR ones personal use IL subject ia
the condition that such manufacture does not
endangor Or
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
!, If such manufacture does prejudiciAlly affect
the rights and interests Of the community, il
1oiiows from the very premises stated by cou1i.
ss tnas society hos the power to itself
OF that business. As was said in Mum vs. I'LL
no1s (04 U. s., l24. while power does not exist
WIN the whole people to control rights that are
require each citizen so to conduct himself and
30 20 use his own property as not unnecessarily
t 70 1n]ure another But by whom Or by what ad-
t9or1ty Is It to DE determined whether the man
fracture OF PARTICULAR articles of drink either
IOr general use or Tor the personal use of the
maker Will injuriously affect the public? Power
70 uetermlne such questions so as to bind all
must exist somewhere. else society will be at the
mercy OF the few who. regarding only their own
appetites or passions. may bs willing TO imperi
the peace and security Of the many, provided
our system that power is lodged with the legis-
!etlve branch OF the government. 1t belongs to
that department. to exert the police powers Of
s1ae 1t must determine what
lection OF the public morals, the public health
or the public safety: It does not al all follow
from these principles that every statute enacted
ostens1bly for the promotion of these ends is to
oe accepted as legitimate eAertion eff the police
powers of the state. There are OF necessity
limits beyond which legislation cannot rightly
rather than the law-makin2 department. of the
government, it must upon its responsibility de-
term1ne whether in any particular case these
limits have been passed. The courts are not
pound by n,crc forms nor are they to be misled
Dy mere pretenses. They are at iberLy-lndeed
are under q solemn 0uty-to look at the SUBJ
stance of things whenever they enter upoa the
the limits Of its authority. II, therefore, \.
statute purporttnR to have been enacted to pro-
act the public health. the public morals or the
tions to those objects of rights secured bV the
fundamental law. it Is the duty of the courts to
so ad1udge and thereby give effect TO the eonsti-'
governing the relations with each other Of the
Judicial and legislative departments of govern
ment, 1t
DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE ANY GRoUNb
for the judiciary to declare that the prohibition
by Kansas OF the manufacture or sale within
her limits Of Intoxicating liquors for general use
ma p:o.eessss sle t com3unity against the the
i've use of ardent spirits. There is here no JUS.
tthcation for holding that the state, under the
g11se OF police regulations is aiming to deprive:
tbs citizen Of his constitutional rights: fof We
cannot shut out of view the fact, within the
knowledge Of all. that tho public health, the:
pubic morals and the public safety may be en-
t a1sinEered by the general use Of Intoxicating
Dy statistics accessible to every one, that the
disorder, pauperism and crime prevalent in the
COUNTY, th are IN large measure directly traceable
solute prohibition Of the manufacture and sale
within her limits Of intoxicating liquors
1 iol other than medical: scientific and
many, manu1acgu5n0 purposes 20 be necessary to the
peace ana dignity Of society, the courts cannot,
Wltnont usurping legislative functions override
the will of the people as thus expressed by their
G cnGssn representatives. It Fundamental
the preservation OF public liberty. that one Of
these departments Of government shall not
os powers committed by the constitution to
ano5pef department And 80, if In the judy
mens OF the legislature the manufacture Of in,
tox1cat1ng liquors for the makers own use as
beverage would tend TO cripple, If not to defeat
n nel enorts to guard the community against the
evils attending the excessive use of such liquors.
IL Is not Tor the courts, upon their views as to
what Is best and safest for the community to
disregard the legislative determination Of that
question: 80 Tar from s,lch a regulation BEING;
inappropriate to tho general end sought to be,
accomplished, 1t is easy to be seen that
the the ,,s entire scheme Of prohibition, az
Of each citizen to manufacture Intoxicating
liquors for his own use as beverage were recog-'
n1zed. Such right does not inhere in citizen
snip. Nor can 1t be said that the government in
ter1eres with or impairs any ones constitutional
rights OF liberty or of property when it deter
mines mines that the manufacture and sale Of ntoxi-
beverage are or may become hurtful to society
and to every member of it. and il therefore 4
o.! 99slness In which no one can lawfully engage
Inns conclusion Is unavoidable unless tho four
from the states OF the Union those powers of
ponce that were reserved at the time the orig
maj ina constitution was adopted. But this court
bier vs.. Connolly, 113 U. s., 81 that the four
teenth amendment had no such effect.
THE PROPERTY OBJECTION.
With reference to the assertion that the
prohibition OF the manufacture and safe of
liquor deprives liquor dealers of their prom;
erty without due process of law, the court
says:
Al property under our form of government Ia
used 80 Is to iujurously affect The rights Of the
Community and thereby become q nuisance.
!; Inc state OF Kansas had right to prohibit the
liquor trafhc. It did not thereby take away the
property OF the brewers 1t simply abated
nuisance The property is not taken away from
us owners: They are only prohibited from using
II lor specific purpose. which the legislature de-
the reasons stated. we are Of the opinion thar
Mugler, the plaintiff In error. has not been de-
NED by the judRments Of the supreme court of